The dispute of Southern Kuril Islands: Russian militarization and Japan’s sovereign claim over disputed islands
The purpose of this article is to analyse the Kuril Island dispute between Russia and Japan and its effects on the diplomatic outlook of the Indo- Pacific region. The islands fundamentally begin with the fact that Russia recognizes them as Southern Kuril Islands and Japan recognizes them as Northern Territory Islands. Despite the difference of recognition is based on the geopolitical proximity about Russia and Japan territorial positioning, but the utility of islands differs for both the parties and the bases of recognizing it as a part of its territorial sovereignty also stands opposites to each other. The dispute in question extends since the end of World War II and the legal questions pertain to the lack of any constructive treaty regarding the status of the islands. Russia’s diplomatic and strategic goals in the Indo- Pacific are dependent upon the acceptance of the Southern Kuril Islands as its sovereign territory, to keep a track of the fleet entering through the northern pacific. Japan’s narrative is sentimental to its historical association with the islands. Being robbed of its rights to the islands due to the wartime ordeals is an argument which Japan believes robs its sovereign right of controlling its territory and its status. The security threat can rise to an exponential level, considering the agenda of militarization on the island by Moscow. But the question remains that what is the diplomatic purpose of the Southern Kuril Islands to Russia and Japan? What are the bases of dispute for the islands and what is the metric by which Russia and Japan disagree over the territoriality over Southern Kuril Islands? Is the Russia- Japan island posing a security threat to the Indo- Pacific and what are the diplomatic elements involved in this diplomatic standoff? The analytical juncture of this article will look upon the historical association of islands with Russia and Japan and understand its contemporary relevance in international politics.
“We need to achieve closure in the talks on the Northern Territories, instead of postponing it for future generations. Striving for comprehensive development of relations with Russia, including the signing of a peace agreement”- Yoshihide Suga, Former Prime Minister of Japan[i]
Introduction: -
The dispute of the Southern Kuril Islands has been a throne in the Russo- Japanese diplomatic relations since 1945. For more than 70 years, the Kuril Island dispute has put both the nations at loggerheads, without any peace treaty. Except for a joint diplomatic declaration in 1956, the question of peace is farfetched in this dispute (Gavrilov, 2016). The distinctiveness about this territorial dispute stands the heightened diplomatic tensions as compared to any violent altercations between both the sovereign states. Russian argument contextualizes that island are an undeniable part of the Russian territory and form a crucial part of its territorial sovereignty in international affairs. Japan’s counter-argument grounds in it the historicity of islands to its history. The Kuril Islands have been part Japanese legacy and due to the Soviet annexation after World War 2, Tokyo lost all its legacy to Moscow. Wartime ordeals do not validate an island as a territory of a nation-state for Tokyo. The authenticity of sovereignty comes from its historical association, not war-time annexations. Therefore, the difference of opinion considering what forms the idea of state sovereignty keeps this diplomatic conflict between Russia and Japan active in the status quo.
The principal question that will continue to re-emerge in this analysis will be around the definition of claims to territory. Particularly, the question becomes intriguing when the mechanism of claims is different, and the belief of territorial sovereignty is divided into two halves. Wartime annexation and nations continuing that legacy, against the historical association of islands. The adamant stance of the Russian delegation is highlighted in its constitution. In June 2021, the phrase “ban on any alienation of Russian territories” was codified in the constitution[ii] of Russia (Brown, 2021). For Russia, the question of the utility or usage of a particular island nation or territory becomes obsolete. The morality of the claim towards the islands, albeit legal or political, becomes a secondary topic. As the Russian act is substantiated by a vision of constitutional authority and constitutional morality, consolidating a strong point for Putin’s administration. Japan’s stakes for regaining the Northern territory, which was lost in the 1945 Yalta conference, when the United States of America promised the islands to Stalin’s administration, increases with its nationalistic reputation. (Jr., 1993) The last effective agreement on this issue was the 1956 Joint Declaration between Russia- Japan to end any ongoing conflict when it comes to the question of islands but the 70- year island dispute still goes on a diplomatic and territorial front.
The purpose of this article is to examine the ongoing Kuril Island dispute between Russia and Japan and its consequence on the status quo. What continues to be the bone of contention for the current dispute? Why is a diplomatic solution difficult for both parties? Is there a possibility for conflict resolution that Russia- Japan can adopt in the coming future? The political and diplomatic analysis of the conflict will provide a holistic picture of the ongoing dispute.
Southern Kurils or Northern Territory?
The dispute of the islands is known by two references. For the Russian delegation, the dispute is for the “Southern Kurils” and the Japanese nationality, it’s called “Northern Territory” (Al Jazeera , 2019). Four islands are known as Shikotan, Habomai Islets/Khabomai, Kunashiri/Kunashir and Etorofu/Iturup. The 1956 joint declaration, between USSR and Japan, ended the state of war and conflict between the two parties. The island chain stretches north across the Pacific Ocean from the Japanese island of Hokkaido to the southern tip of Russia's the Kamchatka Peninsula (Al Jazeera , 2019). Russia is the successor of the USSR’s rule in the region has ever since, considered the Kuril Islands an integral part of Russia. The geopolitical proximity of the islands and their associated chain makes the issue complicated on the grounds of territorial sovereignty. During the Soviet era, other rather than restricting any new conflict or violent aggression, no diplomatic progression has been ever made to broker peace in the question of the island dispute.
Historically, a dispute for sovereignty was initiated in 1786. Russian Empress Catherine the Great proclaimed sovereignty over the Kuril Islands, thereby solidifying it as a part of Russian territory based on Russian exploration (Jr., 1993). In the first treaty between tsarist Russia and Japan in 1855, knowns as the Treaty of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation, the demarcation between the two countries was drawn just north of the four islands closest to Japan (Quillen, 1993 ). Islands to the south of the boundary line- Etorofu, Habomai, Kunashiri and Shikotan- were claimed to be under Japanese territory and all the islands north of the boundary, including Uruppu, deemed to be part of the Russian territory. In 1875, a new treaty transferred the control of the island chain to Tokyo, from Uruppu to Shumush, in exchange for Russia gaining full control of the island of Sakhalin (Quillen, 1993 ). 1895 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation reaffirmed the boundary line of the 1875 treaty.
Japan seized back control of the southern half of Sakhalin after its defeat of Moscow in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War under the agreement of the Treaty of Portsmouth (Quillen, 1993 ). But after the USA’s bombing in Japan, USSR completed its takeover of the islands. The Soviet capture of the islands has restricted any signing of a peace treaty when it comes to the status of the islands. Nikita Khrushchev attempted to broker an agreement in 1956, upon which Japan was offered the two smallest islands- Shikotan and Habomai (Streltsov, 2019). But soon Japanese- US relations started forming a strong foundation and the stance to accepting the smallest islands, turned into a question of sovereign respect, and acknowledging the historicism of the islands. The United States of America played a major political role in the shifting of acknowledging the islands. Initially, under the umbrella of the Allied power, the USA assisted USSR in terms of gaining control of the 4 islands. But soon after the depth of the cold war opened the diplomatic hostility between the two superpowers, the USA’s backing of Japanese foreign policy assisted in asserting its diplomatic stance on the islands (Weber, 2012). Even though it assisted in tilting the discourse of the dispute, the United States of America never actually forwarded a constructive resolution in the region. After the declaration of 1956, the United States of America clarified that the islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri have been a historical sovereign part of the Japanese territory, which was re- clarified by the US Department of Justice in 2014. But the concern of the USA is not limited to its stance. If Russia and Japan enter a violent conflict, article 5[iii] of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, triggers an obligation for the USA to assist the Japanese from the threat of violent conflict.
In October 1973, the territorial issue was revived during the Japanese- Soviet summit meeting in Moscow (Quillen, 1993 ). A joint statement issued after the summit recognized that the parties had “unresolved problems left since World War II and that conclusion of a peace treaty would enhance relations between the two countries.” (Quillen, 1993 ) The question of accelerating peace negotiations continues to put diplomatic pressure on both parties.
The Rising Russian Threat of the Islands: -
Russian foreign policy towards the Southern Kurils islands has adopted an aggressive stance, especially countering, and rejecting Tokyo’s position on the islands via the means of militarization of the island. In 2011, Russia advanced weapons to tighten the security over the territories of the Kuril Islands, which involved the installation of a modern motorized infantry brigade, along with an air defence brigade (Ivanov, 2021). With the deployment of Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, Stereguschy class in its pacific fleet, the militarization of the island became a prominent agenda for Moscow (The Moscow TImes, 2018 ). In 2016, Bal rocket systems in Kunshir, Bastion in Iturup and UAV’s being stationed on the Kuril Islands were some of the biggest militarization projects on the islands (The Economic Times, 2021). Before militarization on land, airspace intrusion was a practice being followed since 2013. Russia claimed that activities involved no airspace intrusion by entering the Japanese airspace (Walia, 2019). Russia flights were part of the surveillance agenda over the islands, specifically north of the island of Hokkaido.
A military base on Kuril Island increases the defence system of Russian territory and curtail the possible deployment of Japanese or American missiles. The nationalistic sentiments drive the sentimentality of militarization of the island. If Russia considers issuing the island chain to Japan, a similar international pressure could mount on retracting the annexation of Crimea in Ukraine. Putin’s administration has the objective of presenting the struggle of attaining the Kuril Islands, as a mechanism of popular appeal, with a strong foreign stance being presented to the United States of America. Russia’s rhetoric of militarization can be rationalized based on a possible loophole as per Article 5 of the security treaty. The argument stands that the treaty doesn't cover the Kuril Islands, being a disputed territory, and USA’s non-commitment due to its formerly divided opinion. But considering the American recognition of historicism, that argument can be countered by the idea of collective security.
The most constructive talks on the issue were held back at the start of 2019 (Mikovic, 2020). Then-Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe and President Vladimir Putin discussed the acceleration of the 1956 joint declaration. Shinzo Abe was able to convince its administration to take control of the Habonai Islets and Shikotan and the question of Kunashiri and Etorofu was to be based upon the discussion of a future peace treaty. But later, the Russian stance towards the islands rejected the compromise between the two parties. The movement of ships by the Russian delegation has also been increased through the Tsugaru Strait, a narrow sea separating the islands of Hokkaido and Honshu in Japan. (Brown, 2021) October 19th movement of ships were a sign of Russian aggression and intervention into the Japanese territoriality (Ivanov, 2021). While the passage was not illegal, since the course was in designated international waters, the show of force serves as an unambiguous reminder to the Japanese that Russia’s priority is showcasing diplomatic strength and power, eradicating all elements of friendly relations, and focusing on acquiring regional and territorial dominance over Tokyo. Putin’s administration has focused on increasing the improvements to its Pacific Fleet. Announcing new upgrades and development projects for the naval fleet in the middle of October 2021, the intention remains to militarize the waters by arming conventional and nuclear submarines near the islands, posing a threat to the Japanese fleet. With Japan becoming a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), USA’s and North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) increased inclination towards Indo- Pacific security issues are creating a new diplomatic threat for Moscow (Sputnik, 2021 ). Despite previously having the ideological backing of the West towards Japanese development in the region, but with increased military and strategic intervention in the region, Russia’s militarization on the islands might be getting an increase for its development pace. Though there is no explicit agreement of Russian- Chinese alignment in the region, but the simultaneous fleet intervention in the waters by Beijing and the ongoing contention of the South China Sea, Japanese security concerns continue to rise in the region.
Shinzo Abe’s objective was to continue a positive development towards the issue. His negotiation meetings with Putin were around 25 times, which surmounts to be an extraordinary dialogue when it comes to a country’s position in conflict of aggression towards another state (Mikovic, 2020). Shinzo Abe’s quest for positive development went to the extent that he overruled the international isolation set further by the United State of America, during the Ukraine insurgency of 2014 (Gady, Russia is building military barracks of disputed Kuril Islands, 2018). Though the talks were not able to penetrate an agreement into a peace deal with the islands, the Russo- Japanese continued to develop based on economic and cultural developments. Shinzo Abe’s procedure was criticized by the Japanese nationalists as Abe continued to build upon positive diplomatic relations with Russia. But after the demise of Abe’s diplomatic practice, the renewed nationalistic pressure from Tokyo, indeed led to Russia restricting any possibility of concession towards these islands.
This diplomatic contest mounts to the utility of the Kuril Island chain. The economic and strategic value of the islands is important and strengthens the nation’s control of the maritime territory. If Russia gets control over the islands, the surveillance over the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia and the Sea of Okhotsk from the North Pacific Ocean (Gady, Russia is building military barracks of disputed Kuril Islands, 2018). This control over the northern pacific will provide the territorial advantage it requires to control the increasing US fleet in the region. If Russia loses control over the islands, the ability to control the access of foreign vessels to the Sea of Okhotsk will fall under the Japanese control, consequently, will be handed over the discretion of Washington (Wiesinger, 2021). For acquiring the major security and strategic control, an anti-air missile system for military deployment was initiated in October 2020 and by the end of December, the S-300CM missile system, used for combat duty, were deployed on Iturup Island (Wiesinger, 2021). This agenda of militarization has been backed up by creating special economic areas to reduce taxes and customs duties on the island. This militarization, disguised with the ulterior agenda of annexing the islands, jeopardizes Tokyo’s historical legacy in Indo- Pacific.
Conclusion:
In the contemporary international discourse, highlighting the situation of territorial and island disputes like the Kuril Islands dispute and the South China Sea dispute, it calls for increased peaceful and resolution dialogue among nations. The diplomatic contest between Russia and Japan is not a novel situation. With the history of war and diplomatic tensions behind these countries, peace is a complicated matter. As compared to the issue of the South China Sea, Kuril Islands’ international attention is comparatively less, due to no violent clashes between fleets of the countries. Though the ideological and military developments by the Russian administration, incline towards a possible violent confrontation in the future, if a peace deal is not brokered. Despite Tokyo’s effort to negotiate or accept any peaceful settlement, Russia’s offence realism has denied the actuality of a peace treaty. Although initially inclined to discuss the status of the Northern Territories/Southern Kurile Islands, Russia aggressive indicated that there is no room for compromise on the sovereignty issue. The possible route for resolving this conflict resides in the introduction of third-party negotiation or mediation.
Kuril island dispute has strong political rhetoric. Russia’s coercive diplomacy tackles the presence of the USA in the region. Japan represents USA’s diplomatic goals in the region. Since the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, Russia has focused on supporting or interacting in situations that are filled with anti-American or anti-Western sentiments. Not only does the Kuril Island dispute disrespects the territorial sovereignty of Japanese territory, conflict with the USA’s one of the closest and strongest ally constitutes an indirect attack upon American diplomatic presence in the region. Shinzo Abe’s peaceful methods might not be revisited anytime soon. With the pressure of bending towards the nationalistic sentiments of the Japanese populous, peaceful negotiations from Japan need to be reconsidered and should present an aggressive diplomatic stance on the islands. Consequently, Japan needs to enhance its defensive capabilities and cultivate and strengthen its alliance with the United States to deter aggressive militarization by Moscow on the islands. With the diplomatic involvement of the United States of America and the inception of the QUAD in Indo- Pacific region, a party-based mediation can be directed towards both parties. The question of peace can only be answered if the politicized diplomatic mechanisms by Russia and Japan are abandoned. Though the issue might not present an urgent violent altercation in the region, the increased militarization is a sign of Russia’s attempts of adopting coercive diplomacy in the region. Elements of territorial disputes, involving violent altercations, contains elements of coercive diplomacy in some way or another. Diplomatic and arbitration instruments can still be introduced in this diplomatic stalemate. Peace can be constructed in the region with appropriate diplomatic intervention.
Notes
[i] Mikovic, Nikola (2020). “Why Russia will not return the Kuril Islands to Japan”. The Lowy Institute Link- Why Russia will not return the Kuril Islands to Japan | The Interpreter (lowyinstitute.org)
[ii] Bill No. 985175-7- Federal Law- On amending Article 1 of the Federal Law on “On Counteracting Extremist Activity” {Link- No985175-7 Draft Law :: Legislative Support System (duma.gov.ru)}
[iii] Article 5- Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. {Link- MOFA: Japan-U.S. Security Treaty}
Bibliography
Al Jazeera . (2019). All you need to know about islands at heart of Russia- Japan feud. Al Jazeera Link- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/22/all-you-need-to-know-about-islands-at-heart-of-russia-japan-feud.
Brown, J. (2021). Is Russia Right to Fear Creeping Militarization in Japan? . Carnegie Moscow Center Link- https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/84701.
Fritz, M. (2016). A solution to the Kuril Islands dispute? . DW News Link- https://www.dw.com/en/a-solution-to-the-kuril-islands-dispute/a-36624291.
Gady, F. S. (2018). Japan Asks Russia to Reduce Militarization of Disputed Kuril Islands. The Diplomat.
Gady, F. S. (2018). Russia is building military barracks of disputed Kuril Islands. The Diplomat.
Gavrilov, V. (2016). Challenges and Prospects of the Southern Kuril Islands' Status. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences.
Ivanov, A. (2021). The Kuril Islands problem as a stumbling point between Russia and Japan. EUreporter Link- https://www.eureporter.co/world/russia/2021/09/17/the-kuril-islands-problem-as-a-stumbling-point-between-russia-and-japan/.
Jr., R. J. (1993). The Kuril Islands Dispute: AN Obstacle in Russo- Japanese Relations . Thesis and Major Paper, University of Rhode Islands Link- https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ma_etds/371, Paper 371 .
Kozyrev, L. G. (2021 ). Japan- Russia relations in perilous free fall. Asia Times Link- https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/japan-russia-relations-in-perilous-free-fall/.
Mikovic, N. (2020). Why the Kuril Islands matter. Global Comment, Asia, Eurasia Link- https://globalcomment.com/why-the-kuril-islands-matter/.
Quillen, A. B. (1993 ). The Kuril Islands or the Northern Territories: Who Owns Them- Island Terriotrial Dispute Continues to Hinder Relations between Russia and Japan. North Carolina Journal of International Law Link- https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1509&context=ncilj.
Sputnik. (2021 ). Japan Raises Serious Concenrs over Russia's Kuril Military Drills. The EurAsian Times Link- https://eurasiantimes.com/japan-raises-serious-concerns-over-russias-kuril-military-drills/.
Streltsov, D. (2019). Why Russia and Japan can't solve the Kuril Islands Dispute. The Moscow TImes.
The Economic Times. (2021). Russia expands military construction plans on Kuril islands: Report. The Economic Times Link- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/russia-expands-military-construction-plans-on-kuril-islands-report/articleshow/85175076.cms?from=mdr.
The Moscow TImes. (2018 ). Russia Approves Deployment of Warplanes to Kuril Islands. The Moscow TImes Link- https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/02/02/russia-aproves-deployment-of-warplanes-in-kuril-islands-a60381.
Walia, S. (2019). Japan- Russia dilemma over the terriotiral dispute. Observer Research Foundation Link- https://www.orfonline.org/research/japan-russia-dilemma-over-territorial-dispute-50973/.
Weber, D. T. (2012). Russia's Pacific Future: Solving the South Kuril Islands Dispute. Carneige Moscow Center.
Wiesinger, E. (2021). Increasing Tensions in Russia- Japan Kuril Islands Dispute. The Organization for World Peace.
Pic Courtesy-Yulya Korban at unsplash.com
(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)
